Source: cases/42usc1981/f-supp-3d-377-273-gonzalez-v-city-of-ny.case
Case source: https://www.neochart.com/catalog/cases/f-supp-3d/volume_377/0273_01/index.html
Therefore, Duplan 's holding applies to the Individual Defendants and bars Mr. Gonzalez from asserting claims under § 1981 against them.
Therefore, Defendants' motion to dismiss the claims that Mr. Gonzalez asserts under § 1981 in counts one through seven is GRANTED.
casedsl 1.2 # author: Flash2 (gemini-3.8-flash-high) # triaged-by: Fable (2026-11-10) case /f-supp-3d/377/0273-01 name Gonzalez v. City of N.Y. cite 377 F. Supp. 3d 273 (2019) # IR court field says: United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois court United States District Court for the Southern District of New York date 2019-03-28 url catalog/cases/f-supp-3d/volume_377/0273_01/index.html source ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_377.jsonl sha1=3acf5d36018952c74a2b7d4c006a832659fb1230 chars=60000 opinion order : order by Woods @0..60000 controlling ? opinion: the IR text is capped at 60000 chars; the end of the opinion is not in the record. The Section 1981 ruling (@14257..17642) is complete. law 42usc1981 role applied posture civil; City Comptroller's Office employee's retaliation, discrimination, hostile-environment and constructive-discharge claims pleaded directly under Section 1981 against the City and four municipal employees; Rule 12(b)(6) motion granted as to every Section 1981 claim without leave to replead; parallel Section 1983 claims decided separately (S.D.N.Y.) result claimant-lost element state-remedial-route : not-satisfied [law] route _whole pattern claims-pleaded-directly-under-section-1981-against-city-and-municipal-employees-in-both-capacities rule @14422..14575 [quoted] | In Duplan v. City of New York , however, the Second Circuit held that " § 1981 does not provide a separate private right of action against state actors." fact @8796..9041 [neutral] | In the operative complaint-the TAC-Mr. Gonzalez asserts a litany of claims and names the Individual Defendants in their personal and official capacities as well as the City of New York (the "City") as defendants (collectively, the "Defendants"). held @15952..16088 | Therefore, Duplan 's holding applies to the Individual Defendants and bars Mr. Gonzalez from asserting claims under § 1981 against them. held @17220..17350 | Therefore, Defendants' motion to dismiss the claims that Mr. Gonzalez asserts under § 1981 in counts one through seven is GRANTED. gloss What fails is the direct Section 1981 cause of action against state actors (Jett / Duplan); the court did not decide any Section 1981 element on the facts. The Section 1983 claims are analysed afterwards on equal-protection and First Amendment grounds, not as carriers of Section 1981 rights. ? holding: the element is the Section 1983 route for state-actor impairment; "not-satisfied" here records that the direct Section 1981 claims were dismissed because that route is exclusive, not that a Section 1983-borne Section 1981 claim failed ? route: the Monell policy-or-custom dismissal of the Section 1983 claims against the City (@19755..22530) is not tied by the court to Section 1981 and has no block